So Bogus Alcohol in moderation is "the single healthiest thing... other than quitting smoking" according to every surgeon general in the western world. And Meth only harming the user? What about the pollution by meth labs to the environment and those long term effect? So skewed!

Are these "drug-harm experts" aware of the damage, cocaine and crack-cocaine generate in the societies of the producing countries and along the transit routes? Cocaine might look relatively harmless to a person living in London but not in Bogotá or México. Are they aware of the impact of cocaine and heroin production to the security of vast areas of the world? The Taliban regime in Afghanistan and FARC terrorism survived and prospered largely on the trade of heroin and cocaine.

You points are quite valid. I think it's key to keep in mind that the negative impact in the drug producing countries is yet another nightmare entirely caused by futile prohibition and failed politically tainted criminalization and drug wars. The toll on lives, from the terrible conditions in the source and producing countries, to the devastation in the destination countries and cities can only end when rational thinking prevails. All drugs must be legalized. When that happens, the suffering will end.

Someday in the near future, when the world has woken up from the fog of fear, control and disinformation, they'll look back and shake their heads in bewilderment and ask each other: "They put people in jail for that?" Sad to think how many families will be torn apart and how many billions of dollars utterly wasted on useless drug wars, between now and then. But there are some recent hopeful signs: some efforts to lighten some of the horribly harsh mandatory US Federal sentences and voters in Colorado and Washington passing legislation to legalize and regulate marijuana. Sometimes, when long overdue societal changes finally are set in motion, huge numbers of people can sometimes wake up and at once.

In July 2000, Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar, collaborating with the United Nations to eradicate heroin production in Afghanistan, declared that growing poppies was un-Islamic, resulting in one of the world's most successful anti-drug campaigns. The Taliban enforced a ban on poppy farming via threats, forced eradication, and public punishment of transgressors. The result was a 99% reduction in the area of opium poppy farming in Taliban-controlled areas, roughly three quarters of the world's supply of heroin at the time.[14] The ban was effective only briefly due to the deposition of the Taliban in 2002."

The greater level of harm caused by alcohol could be explained by its far greater level of use (and acceptance) in society than any other drug. Unlike other drugs, alcohol is not confined to any specific social group, it is used by nearly everyone. Moderate alcohol consumption is even considered healthy by at least some in the medical profession. No other drug in this study enjoys this level of acceptance by society. So, the results of the study are not exactly a revelation.

I understand your point and as with most drugs, moderate consumption is not usually problematic. but the science and statistics have decisively shown that as a substance, alcohol is more harmful, physically and socially, than than almost all other drugs. Consumption of alcohol is many times more likely to result in violent behavior and severely impaired judgement, often resulting in harm to others as well as those drinking. Alcohol also has some of the most destructive, long term, irreversible effects on the body, compared to other drugs.

Despite all of the above, we have learned that prohibition is futile and that education and treatment are the way forward toward reducing problems associated with alcohol. There are many factors that have contributed to the irrational, long term criminal prohibition of other drugs but the results have been disastrous. As a society we all need to free our minds from fears and lies understand that legalizing all drugs will NOT result in chaos as all drugs flood our streets, etc. because that has already been the case all along. The chaos and violence are being caused by prohibition and resultant criminal black market. Legalize and regulate all drugs and the violence ends. We can then address the health and treatment issues and move forward from there.

I don't understand how you can conclude that alcohol, at least partially because it legal to use, is more harmful than almost all other drugs, that incidentally are largely illegal and therefore we should legalize them. It is inevitable that as usage increases the perceived dangers and harm will be realized and based upon my personal experience far exceed those of alcohol.

I don't understand how you can conclude that alcohol, at least partially because it legal to use, is more harmful than almost all other drugs, that incidentally are largely illegal and therefore we should legalize them. It is inevitable that as usage increases the perceived dangers and harm will be realized and based upon my personal experience far exceed those of alcohol.

Drug Harm Experts are ranking things according to what criteria? The British Government, despite more than a decade of data showing declining consumption of alcohol in the UK - less beer is drunk now that in the interwar period for example - must have revenue. What better aythan to hike tax rates on beer. With this has come declining alcohol related criminal activity. But hey - the "binge drinker" and the lager lout are jsut too easy a target. How come wine and sherry the MPs favourite tippel is never mentioned?
This is useless committee voting attempting to pass as science. To the Economist: Please add some analysis if you are going to pedal this Daily Mail guff.

There's never been a single case of death caused by LSD. However, LSD has been known to be a catalyst for things like schizophrenia in people in people whose family has a history of said mental problems.

Cannabis causes more harm than Benzodiazepines? The author of this story is obviously completely ignorant of the subject, with zero knowledge of these drugs and their effects, long and short term.

Benzodiazepines along with anti-depressants are the most addictive drugs by far, and cause unimaginable pain and suffering from years of withdrawal. Millions of lives are shattered each year by these destructive drugs that are mostly misused, over-prescribed and make 10's of billions in profits for the pharmacuetical/medical crime syndicates.

It is a shame and a crime against humanity what the mainstream medical establishment has gotten away with. This is mostly still an untold story.

While we're on the subject, GHB is an all natural substance in your body without which you would die. It is one of the healthiest substances ever discovered by science and one of the safest, which is why there is a propaganda campaign against it ("date rape" drug, etc).
Taking this natural substance off the market is also a crime against humanity and a story yet to be told.

but the act of smoking is also dangerous.. I'm sure that accounts for some of the damage associated with Cannabis. Notice they didn't say THC (the active ingredient).

Given that most people smoke (joint or pipe) vs. vaping or eating I can see how cannabis gets a higher rank than something ingested orally in pill form (even injected) there's nothing inherently dangerous about swallowing a pill or getting an injection.

I think you are bit confused. This isn't a opinion piece in which an Economist author gives an opinion. This is informational article reporting from [Lancet on November 1st ... Researchers led by Professor David Nutt, a former chief drugs adviser to the British government, asked drug-harm experts to rank 20 drugs..on 16 measures of harm to the user and to wider society...]
I would suggest taking your concerns to the Lancet. Also, is there a non-mainstream medical establishment?

The experts *did* conclude that benzodiazepines were more harmful to the users than cannabis, but cannabis presently causes larger harm to society (at least in the UK). The harms of cannabis include the harms of prohibition, and there almost certainly (despite the prohibition) more people who use cannabis than those who use benzodiazepines.

GHB, however, is NOT one of the safest drugs. It is physically addictive, has a very steep dosage curve, causes intoxicant and sedative effects similar to alcohol with all of the attendant risks, and there have been dozens of fatal overdoses. GHB is not the most dangerous drug out there, but it is certainly not one of the safest.

Cannabis causes more harm to society than the toxic, most addictive drugs in the world, Benzos? Don't even try to make me laugh.
And what little you really know about GHB you read from all the bs propaganda. You've never read a single scientific study.
There has never been a substantiated death from the use of GHB alone. It releases growth hormone, induces deep but safe sleep, and is one of the healthiest substances on the planet when used well.
Even when abused the chances of serious harm are minimal. You go to sleep and can't wake up for a few hours. Big deal.
I'm talking from extensive experience, and you? What do you really know about it except what you read in 1 or 2 articles? I have researched the medical literature and seen it used safely for years -- the facts are it is one of the healthiest and safest substances on the planet, whatever they try and tell you.

I'm not sure if the measure taken into account as 'crime' can be considered a legitimate criteria since that crime would not exist if some of those drugs were legal and would increase manyfold in the case of alcohol were it made illegal. An example of that being the prohibition era in the USA which gave birth to the Mafia as a truly organised criminal fraternity...had prohibition not been introduced the fuel of supplying alcohol would have been removed.

Oh please. This is just beneath The Economist. Where is the accompanying graph that shows values / user? You'd eviscerate a 1st year student studying (insert your least favourite humanity course here) for publishing such biased rubbish; we have come to expect more from the economist. For shame

Just in case someone utterly oblivious reads this, this study was about alcohol use in aggregate being more harmful than heroin use in aggregate. The harmful effects of alcohol are being multiplied by a much larger user base than with heroin. If you thought the study was suggesting that it would be less harmful for you to switch to heroin from alcohol, then perhaps I shouldn't've posted this and let darwinism take action.

The problem with this graph is that because alcohol is so popular and easily accessible, it only makes sense that it will have a more harmful effect on society and the individual. If all of the drugs were equally as accessible and socially accepted than this graph would probably look much different. Imagine if every night everyone shot up or snorted a line instead of having a beer, all of a sudden everyone is dependent and the dangers become even more apparent.

I would not compare drinking A beer to snorting or shooting up(especially one line). Change that to 3-4 beers, that may be more equivalent (if such a term exists in this comparison).
Many people ARE dependent on alcohol.
Imagine if the number of people who drank alcohol changed to the number of people who do those other two things (but not vice versa). Would society improve? Possibly.

That's implying that legalizing such drugs would stop users from stealing, and that is definitely not true. Do people rob liquor stores when they need alcohol? Do people steal money for cigarettes when they need a fix? Basically, the use of any addictive drug (which is technically all of them), legal or illegal, can lead to stealing.